https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0783-6807
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Following the presence of Hegel’s philosophy in Iran from the nineteenth century to the present, this study discusses various interpretations and appropriations of Hegelian philosophy by Iranian activists, intellectuals, and academics in their quest for understanding and realizing modernity in Iran. The controversies around modernity, democratization, Islam, nationalism, and the role of Hegel’s ideas and philosophy in the writings of liberal modernists, communist activists, religious intellectuals, academic scholars, and secular nationalist theoreticians will be discussed. The objective is to provide a general, as well as a detailed, perspective on the prominent, original, as well as understudied role Hegel has played in the intellectual history of Iran in its specific Islamic theologico-political predicament.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Mahdi, Alfarabi and the Foundation of Islamic Political Philosophy, 35–36.
2 Our translation: “Mais, toutefois, les deux hommes que les philosophes de ma connaissance ont la plus grande soif de connaître, c’est Spinosa et Hegel; on le comprend sans peine. Ces deux esprits sont des esprits asiatiques et leurs théories touchent par tous les points aux doctrines connues et goûtées dans le pays du soleil. Il est vrai que, pour cette raison même, elles ne sauraient introduire là des éléments vraiment nouveaux.” Arthur De Gobineau, Les religions et les philosophies dans l’Asie centrale, 139. For the context of Gobineau’s comment see Kadivar, “Āqā ʿAlī Mudarris Ṭihrānī,” 237.
3 De Gobineau, Les religions et les philosophies dans l’Asie centrale, 101, 138–39; Boissel, Gobineau: Biographie, mythe et réalité , 164; Renan, “Les Téaziés de la Perse,” 7:831; Nash, Comte de Gobineau and Orientalism. Selected Eastern Writings, 15.
4 For the reception of the European thinkers in this period, see also Seidel, “The Reception of European Philosophy in Qajar Iran, esp. 339, 346.
5 Alī Furūġī, Seyri Ḥikmat Dar Urūpā [The Course of Philosophy in Europe], 2:6.
6 See Ansari, “Mohammad Ali Foroughi and the Construction of Civic Nationalism in Early Twentieth-Century Iran,” 11–27.
7 See Ṣafāʾī, Rahbarān-i Mashrūṭīyat [the Leaders of the Constitutionalism], 2:542.
8 Alī Furūġī, Ḥuqūq-i Asāsī (Ya‘anī) Ādāb-i Mashruṭiyyat-i Duval [Constitutional Rights Mean the Constitutional Etiquette of States], 123–47.
9 Furūġī, Seyri Ḥikmat Dar Urūpā [The Course of Philosophy in Europe], 2:64.
10 For a presentation of these intellectuals see Boroujerdi, Iranian Intellectuals and the West. The Tormented Triumph of Nativism; Mirsepassi, Political Islam, Iran, and the Enlightenment. Philosophies of Hope and Despair, esp. chapters 1 & 2.
11 One can also hypothesize that Foroughi adopted this ambivalent approach to legitimize his position and work in the eyes of the traditionalists as well as the opponents of modernity in Iran. In this regard, one might compare the claims of Foroughi and other Iranian intellectuals like Ehsan Tabari (see Rumi and Hegel below) about the alleged resemblance between different aspects of modern philosophy and the thoughts of “native” thinkers with similar questionable claims in the writings of Alfarabi. See Boroujerdi and Mirsepassi above.
12 Furūġī, Seyri Ḥikmat Dar Urūpā [The Course of Philosophy in Europe], 2:38.
13 Furūġī, 2:7.
14 Furūġī, 2:57.
15 Politzer, Principes Fondamentaux de Philosophie.
16 Mowlānā Jalāl Al-Din: Hegel-i Sharq Ast (Nashriāt-e Beh-pish: Tehran, 1357).
17 Lewis, Rumi: Past and Present, East and West : The Life, Teaching and Poetry of Jalâl Al-Din Rumi, 662.
18 For similar treatments of Hegel in later years, see Manṣūr Hāshimī, Ṣayrūrat Dar Falsafah-i Mulā Ṣadrā va Higil [Becoming in the Philosophy of Mulla Sadra and Hegel]; Ḥamīd , Guftugūyī Miyān-i Higil va Faylasūfān-i Islāmī. Ṣayrūrat, Diyāliktīk va ĪdihʹĀlīsm [A Dialogue between Hegel and Islamic Philosophers. Becoming, Dialectic, and Idealism].
19 For an interesting example, see Tabari, Bonyād-e Āmūzesh-e Enqelābī [Foundation of the Revolutionary Education], n.d. This again adds weight to the suspicion that the author of the book was in fact Tabari.
20 This rhetorical strategy has a long pedigree among thinkers of similar conditions. For instance, Alfarabi tries to provide an Eastern lineage for philosophy to avoid the charge of following an alien type of practice coming from the heathen Greeks: Alfarabi, “The Attainment of Happiness,” , 43 (Hyderabad 38). Cf. the remarkable defense of philosophy in Al-Kindi, The Philosophical Works of Al-Kindi, 11–12 (Rashed & Jolivet 12–15).
21 Taghī Miṣbāḥ Yazdī; Ṭabarī; Nigahdār; Suroush, Guftmān-i Rushangar Darbāray-i Andīshihay-i Bunyādīn, 29. Mirsepassi, Iran’s Quiet Revolution. The Downfall of the Pahlavi State, 193.
22 For biographical information see Ashraf, “Enāyat, Ḥamīd,”; Gheissari, “İNÂYET, Hamîd,” in TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi, 2000, https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/inayet-hamid. Boroujerdi, Iranian Intellectuals and the West. The Tormented Triumph of Nativism, 140–47.
23 Terence Stace, The Philosophy of Hegel. A Systematic Exposition; Hegel, ʿAql Dar Tārīkh [Reason in History], , xii–xiii. Enayat’s short translation is in fact a translation of a section of Kojève’s book entitled “En guise d’introduction” (In Place of an Introduction), a section which in the original French is 26 pages: a translation with commentary of a section of Phenomenology, titled “Independence and dependence of self-consciousness: Lordship and Bondage” (the title is from A.V. Miller’s translation): Kojève, , 11–37; Kojève, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel. Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit, 3–31. One weakness of Enayat’s translation is that in the original French, Kojève’s commentary and comments are in italics and brackets, while in Enayat’s translation, it is difficult to distinguish between Hegel’s original text and Kojève’s additions and comments.
24 Terence Stace, Falsafiy-i Higil [The Philosophy of Hegel], , xxiv.
25 Geldsetzer, Die Philosophie Der Philosophiegeschichte Im 19. Und 20. Lahrhundert; Frede, “The History of Philosophy as a Discipline,” 666–72; Cekic, “Philosophie Der Philosophiegeschichte von Hegel Bis Hartmann,” 1–22; van der Zweerde, Soviet Historiography of Philosophy. Istoriko-Filosofskaja Nauka, 5.
26 For Enayat’s interest in the political impact of the philosophical discussions, see e.g., the discussion in Boroujerdi above.
27 Enayat, “Piyvand-i Zindigī va Khiradī Higil Bā Zamānih-Yi Ū [The Connection between Hegel’s Life and Thought with His Time],” 2–4.
28 Stace, Falsafiy-i Higil [The Philosophy of Hegel], x.
29 Stace, xi.
30 Stace, xi–xii.
31 Stace, x–xi.
32 Boroujerdi, Iranian Intellectuals and the West. The Tormented Triumph of Nativism, 143.
33 Hegel, ʿAql Dar Tārīkh [Reason in History], xii–xiii.
34 Hegel, xix.
35 Hegel, xx; Hafiz, The Divan of Hafiz. Edition of Complete Poetry, 292.
36 Before the revolution of 1979, Mojtahedi published the following articles: Mujtahidī, Majalah-I Dānishkadah-I Adabiyyāt va ῾Ulūm-I Insānī Dānishgah-I Tihrān: 96–108; Mujtahidī, Majalah-I Dānishkadah-I Adabiyyāt va ῾Ulūm-I Insānī Dānishgah-I Tihrān: 77–89. After the revolution he wrote the following books on Hegel’s philosophy:Mujtahidī, Manṭiq Az Naẓargāh-I Higil [Logic from Hegel’s Point of View]; Mujtahidī, Afkār-I Higil [Thoughts of Hegel]; Mujtahidī, Padīdār’shenāsīy-I Rūḥ Bar Ḥasab-I Naẓar-I Higil [Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit].
37 Ardabīlī, “Interview with Karīm Mujtahidī,”: 5–7.
38 There is a considerable number of studies on his thought, and some of his writings are even translated into several languages. We therefore forego a general introduction to his thought and will concentrate on what touches our subject. For more detailed studies, see Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi, “Soroush,” Key Islamic Political Thinkers, 219–45; Vakili, “Abdolkarim Soroush and Critical Discourse in Iran,”, 150–77; Soroush, “Intellectual Autobiography. An Interview,”, ix–xix.
39 Ghamari-Tabrizi, Islam and Dissent in Postrevolutionary Iran. Abdolkarim Soroush, Religious Politics and Democratic Reform, 222.
40 Popper’s famous critique of historicism, which deals with the Marxist view of history, was translated in 1971: Popper, Faghr-i Tarīkhīgarī [The Poverty of Historicism]. For Popper in Iran see also Paya and Amin Ghaneirad, “The Philosopher and the Revolutionary State. How Karl Popper’s Ideas Shaped the Views of Iranian Intellectuals” : 185–213.
41 Tabrizi, Islam and Dissent in Postrevolutionary Iran. Abdolkarim Soroush, Religious Politics and Democratic Reform, 100, 201.
42 Popper, Jāmʻ-i Bāz va Doshmanān-i Ān [The Open Society and Its Enemies].
43 For this debate see Boroujerdi, Iranian Intellectuals and the West. The Tormented Triumph of Nativism, chapter 7; Mirsepassi, Transnationalism in Iranian Political Thought. The Life and Times of Ahmad Fardid.
44 See Khalajī, “Miṣbāḥ va Surūsh: Az Peymān-I Hamkārī Tā Piykār-I Piygīr [Mesbah and Soroush: From the Cooperation Agreement to the Ongoing Struggle],” https://raahak.com/?p=16854.
45 Cf. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, 217–91 with 286–87.
46 Soroush, “Dorostī va Doroshtī. Bāz Ham Darbar-i Enghelāb-i Farhangī [Rightness and Abuse. Again on Cultural Revolution]”.
47 For biographical information and a more general perspective on Tabatabai’s thought see Boroujerdi and Shomali, “The Unfolding of Unreason: Javad Tabatabai’s Idea of Political Decline in Iran,” 949–65.. In Boroujerdi and Shomali the date of Tabatabai’s dismissal is recorded as 1995. I have followed the following: Javad Tabatabai, “La pensée politique en Iran,”, 147–52.
48 Tabatabai et al., “Mīz-i Gerd: Buḥrān-i Huviyyat (Bāṭin-i Buḥrān’hay-i Mu῾asir) [Round-Table Talk: The Crisis of Identity (The Core of Contemporary Crises)],” 13–14.
49 Javad Tabatabai, “Seh Rivāyat Az Falsafiy-i Sīyāsīy-i Hegel [Three Narratives of Hegel’s Political Philosophy],” 10–18.
50 Tabatabai, 16.
51 Tabatabai, 16.
52 Tabatabai, 16.
53 Tabatabai, 16.
54 Tabatabai, 17. For a similar reading of Hegel see also Siep, “How Modern Is the Hegelian State?,” 197–218.
55 Javad Tabatabai, “Nukātī Dar Tarjumey-i Barkhī Mafāhīm-i Falsafiy-i Higil [Some Points on Translating Some Concepts of Hegel’s Philosophy],” 16–23.
56 Tabatabai.
57 For further discussion, see Javad Tabatabai, Zavāl-i Andīshah-i Siyāsī Dar Īrān [Deterioration of Political Thought in Iran]; Javad Tabatabai, Ta'ammulī Dar Bārah-'i Īrān. DībāchahʹĪ Bar Naẓarīyah-'i InḥiṭāṬ-I Īrān [A Reflection on Iran. A Preface to the Theory of Decadence of Iran]
58 Javad Tabatabai, “Baḥsī Darbāray-i ‘Rūḥ’ Dar Falsafiy-i Higil [A Discussion on the Concept of ‘Spirit’ in Hegel’s Philosophy],” 36–43.
59 Tabatabai, 38.
60 Tabatabai, 38.
61 Tabatabai, 39. For the persistence of the idea of civil religion in Tabatabai’s thought see Tabatabai, Zavāl-i Andīshah-i Siyāsī Dar Īrān [Deterioration of Political Thought in Iran], Part II.
62 Tabatabai, “Baḥsī Darbāray-i ‘Rūḥ’ Dar Falsafiy-i Higil [A Discussion on the Concept of ‘Spirit’ in Hegel’s Philosophy],” 39.
63 As Habermas has explained, “Hegel applied the term positive to religions that are based on authority alone and that do not incorporate the value of human beings into their morality.” Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Twelve Lectures, 25.
64 Hegel, “The Relationship of Religion to the State,” 226.
65 Javad Tabatabai, “Guftugū Darbārihy-i Dīn va Higil [A Conversation on Religion and Hegel],” 294–308; Javad Tabatabai, L’islam politique est voué à l’échec, interview by Jean-Dominique Merchet and Jean-Luc Allouche, Libération, October 27, 2001, https://www.liberation.fr/planete/2001/10/27/javad-tabatabai-l-islam-politique-est-voue-a-l-echec_382158/.
66 Seyyid Javad Tabatabai, “Guftugū Darbārihy-i Dīn va Higil [A Conversation on Religion and Hegel],” 303–304.
67 Tabatabai, Ta'ammulī Dar Bārah-'i Īrān. DībāchahʹĪ Bar Naẓarīyah-'i InḥiṭāṬ-I Īrān [A Reflection on Iran. A Preface to the Theory of Decadence of Iran] 139–146.
68 Tabatabai, 1:139; Émile Benveniste, Le Vocabulaire Des Institutions Indo-Européennes, 2 vols. (Paris: Minuit, 1969).
69 Tabatabai, Ta'ammulī Dar Bārah-'i Īrān. DībāchahʹĪ Bar Naẓarīyah-'i InḥiṭāṬ-I Īrān [A Reflection on Iran. A Preface to the Theory of Decadence of Iran], 1:142.
70 Tabatabai, 1:142.
71 Tabatabai, 1:144.
72 Tabatabai, 1:144.
73 Tabatabai, 1:144.
74 Tabatabai, 1:144..
75 Tabatabai, 1:145. It might be argued that Tabatabai tends to highlight Hegel’s account of Ancient Iran in order to strengthen his Iranshahri theory. Hegel’s interpretation of ancient Iran seems so important to Tabatabai that it appears again in his recent book Nation, State, and the Rule of Law. Javad Tabatabai, Millat, dawlat va ḥukūmat-i qānūn [Nation, State, and the Rule of Law] 128.
76 For further discission see: Tabatabai, Ta'ammulī Dar Bārah-'i Īrān. DībāchahʹĪ Bar Naẓarīyah-'i InḥiṭāṬ-I Īrān [A Reflection on Iran. A Preface to the Theory of Decadence of Iran], 1: 152–153.
77 Tabatabai, 1:146.
78 For a detailed discussion, see Tabatabai, Zavāl-i Andīshah-i Siyāsī Dar Īrān [Deterioration of Political Thought in Iran], 115–249. The concept of Irānshahr as a historical phenomena has received some scholarly attention. See Daryaee, Sasanian Persia. The Rise and Fall of an Empire; Gnoli, The Idea of Iran. An Essay on Its Origin.
79 This term was coined by American scholar Richard Frye. See Nelson Frye, The Golden Age Of Persia. The Arabs in the East.
80 Tabatabai, Ta'ammulī Dar Bārah-'i Īrān. DībāchahʹĪ Bar Naẓarīyah-'i InḥiṭāṬ-I Īrān [A Reflection on Iran. A Preface to the Theory of Decadence of Iran], 1:146.
81 Tabatabai, 1:146.
82 See Farhad Khosrokhavar, “The New Intellectuals in Iran,” 191–202.
83 See Faye, Heidegger. L’introduction du nazisme dans la philosophie.
84 For a good summary of reactions, see Kierstead, “Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies, and Its Enemies,” 2–28.
85 Najjar, “Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Egyptian Enlightenment Movement,” 65–84.
86 See Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, 508.